Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom

I have a problem with all money that "Jurassic World" and its sequel "Fallen Kingdom" have made because "it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it." Director J. A. Bayona, co-writer Colin Trevorrow (who made the first "Jurassic World") are standing on the shoulders of great filmmakers like executive producer Steven Spielberg, Michael Crichton and producer Frank Marshall and haven't learned from all the mistakes of the previous film because the financial earnings were so high. "Jurassic World" broke so many box office records that the film itself was overhyped. Those records by the way were broken only months later by the way by "The Force Awakens". I saw many of the same cinematic problems with "Jurassic World" carried over into its sequel and "Fallen Kingdom" borrowed too much from other films in the franchise for my taste. My solution to all this was not to have made "Fallen Kingdom" in the first place but then again, others won't be as picky as me.

The filmmakers used the same motifs as we have already seen in this franchise but in the case of the "Toy Story" franchise, Pixar worked hard to create originality while staying true to their origins. The same cannot be said for those working on the "Jurassic World" films. The question asked in many of the films of this franchise is "Can you create and control nature for financial profit?" I have another question: "Why did Hammond build his park on a volcanic island?" To answer my own question, I don't think that Isla Nublar was volcanically active in the first movie but rather the filmmakers behind "Fallen Kingdom" made it so. Hammond may have been guilty of making a lot of mistakes, such as overlooking weather problems in the first film, but I can't see him spending all that money with even the slimmest chance of a volcanic eruption. He was hoping to control nature but I don't seem him as the type of businessman who would take on Pele as well as a zoo of dinosaurs. As with the creation of the Indominus rex in "Jurassic World", the filmmakers are being forced to create their own conflicts in order to keep the franchise going. In writing the movie, Colin Trevorrow focused on the idea that a mistake made a long time ago (such as creating dinosaurs) can't be undone. Funny enough, he wrote a way for this mistake to be undone by way of the suddenly active volcano. The eruption was nature's way of correcting this mistake as Malcolm hypothesizes. Instead, Trevorrow used the volcano to get the dinosaurs off the island. This doesn't make much logic sense in my opinion. Metaphorically speaking, the filmmakers made a movie about being in a canoe without a paddle. The characters in the film then come across a paddle but then use it to paddle towards a waterfall. It is apparent that the filmmakers are scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas to keep the franchise going. The original novel "Jurassic Park" may have talked about the volcano but because that was not part of the original film, I don't accept its sudden appearance in the cinematic franchise. As a side note, I don't understand why Owen didn't burn up as the lava slowly approached him. In real life, you can catch fire just by being too close to lava. Another common motif in most Jurassic films is the entrepreneur trying to capitalize on dinosaurs. Once again, originality is being thrown out the window because this sequel seems a lot like its predecessor "The Lost World" where Ludlow tried to take dinos off the island. Mills in "Fallen Kingdom" also continues Vic Hoskins' desire from the previous movie to use dinosaurs as weapons. I might have been able to overlook that flaw but the filmmakers couldn't help but make yet another fictional dinosaur hybrid. As Owen says said in "Jurassic World": "They're dinosaurs. Wow enough." What is even funnier is that to create the Indoraptor for "Fallen Kingdom", they combined the DNA of the Indominus rex with that of a Velociraptor when the Indominus itself was already a hybrid of a T-rex and a Velociraptor. It sounds like someone saying, "I plan to bake an apple pie but in a revolutionary move, I will add an apple!"

There are other flaws with "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" that should not go unnoticed. The Mosasaurus' escape at the start of the film spoiled what was going to happen at the end of the film. Actually, I'm wrong because the trailers already spoiled the ending of their own movie. For "Jurassic World", the filmmakers made a few too many changes to the franchise in order to appeal to a modern audience. This time, they attempted to include some suspense by way of nostalgia. You have the Indoraptor tapping his toenail, the moment when Maisie tries to close the dumbwaiter and when the Indoraptor opens the balcony door. There were other visual references to the original 1993 film but being nostalgic isn't a way to create genuine suspense because we have seen these moments before. I noticed that the script set us up for a plot point that wasn't delivered. Webb is so scared about running into the T-rex on multiple occasions and when the dinosaur shows up during the eruption, we don't get to see Webb's reaction. Speaking of the T-rex, it was captured by the mercenaries way too easily off screen considering that a volcanic eruption was happening. It was neat to have Malcolm back in the franchise after an exact 20-year absence and thankfully, the filmmakers were true to his character. The problem was that the amount of time we see Malcolm in the trailers almost equaled his screen time in the movie. In the first two films of the franchise, he was the entertaining voice of criticism. Malcolm could have had an entertaining role if he had been given the chance to interact with Lockwood or Mills but that part was given to Dr. Wu instead. I also didn't care for the parallels of between Malcolm and Al Gore because Malcolm hates "being right all the time" while Gore wants to be right all the time so badly that he has to make a second documentary to cover up some of his false predictions. Another flaw in "Fallen Kingdom" is the romantic relationship between Owen and Claire. As with the last film, it is unneeded.

I am done now with the major criticisms. There were some things that were improved upon this time around. There were moments in the film where the audience got to take a breath and the character of Maisie was an emotional anchor that was missing in "Jurassic World". The filmmakers could have focused too much on special effects but robotics were thankfully used more extensively than in the last film. However, it appears as though the focus of the filmmakers in making "Fallen Kingdom" was less on story & originality and more on action & keeping the franchise going. I did enjoy seeing some of the new cast members such as James Cromwell, Toby Jones and Ted Levine. Chris Pratt however had a more entertaining role last time to perform. What Owen goes through this time isn't as fun. I did like the performance of Isabella Sermon by the way. I applaud the decision to bring in a new director in order to create variety even though it didn't really work. I was impressed by Bayona's film "The Impossible" and he has horror experience. It was the former film that got the producers attention when choosing a director for "Fallen Kingdom". Composer Michael Giacchino's work was okay but not as good as in "Jurassic World"

I once again quote Stan Winston, who was in charge of creating the robotic dinosaurs in the previous films, concerning the initial attempts to continue this franchise:"[Spielberg] felt neither of [the drafts] balanced the science and adventure elements effectively. It's a tough compromise to reach, as too much science will make the movie too talky, but too much adventure will make it seem hollow." I love this quote because in my opinion, "Jurassic World" was hollow and its sequel was talky. Also, the adventure in "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" lacked the originality and verisimilitude I wanted. "Jurassic World" had a good premise but spoiled it with the inclusion of the lndominus rex. Unfortunately, that show made so much money that "Fallen Kingdom" was launched. The film series is becoming symbolic of the plot of the movies themselves. People could have followed Malcolm's warnings and let the dinosaurs die on Isla Nublar but the actions of mercenaries led to a bigger disaster. The filmmakers could have let this franchise alone after the failure of "Jurassic Park III" but now they have created a new set of films that still fall short of living up to the films from the 90's. Thankfully, this comparison isn't as bad as I make it sound. The "Jurassic World" films will not ruin the original two films for me because I don't have to see the newer films again and the older films will always be on my video shelf to enjoy. There is a tendency among passionate fans to feel like they have a sense of ownership because they love something so much. They take any change too personally as a result but I subconsciously know that I don't own these movies and I am therefore not offended. "Jurassic World" is going to be a trilogy because of how well "Fallen Kingdom" is already doing financially. It is true that a franchise must evolve or perish but here is another quote I have said before: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." I never asked for a new set of Jurassic films. Sure we didn't ask for a reboot of "Jumanji" but that is a rare exception. Just like the "Transformers" franchise, the "Jurassic World" franchise is running out of ways to be original.

3 Stars out of 5